Case Updates

This case concerns a fundamentally dishonest claimant. The judge held that the experts in the case were reliant on self-reporting by the claimant, who the judge found to be wholly unreliable, as to the extent to which the alleged injuries suffered had impacted her life.

Scully -v- Atherton (& others) E13YX311

In this Bermudan case, the appellant successfully appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to have his convictions quashed because of errors in the collection, examination and interpretation of the DNA expert evidence used in the trial.

Julian Washington (Appellant) v The King (Respondent) (Bermuda) [2024] UKPC 34

The father sought permission to rely on fresh evidence that he had a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder in an appeal against care and placement orders made in respect of his daughter. The judge reviewed the law on admitting fresh evidence on appeal before applying it to the case.

The judge in this patent case found that the claimants’ gene therapy expert had developed, quite possibly guided by lawyers, the understanding that the primary duty of an expert witness is not to say anything that may damage the instructing party’s case if it can be avoided.

In this US case, an expert in fiduciary services used Microsoft’s Copilot to cross-check calculations he used in expert evidence. He was unable to recall the prompts he used, state the sources Copilot relied on, or explain how the tool worked and arrived at its outputs. The judge provided some useful insight into the challenges with using AI in expert evidence. 

The defendant’s spinal cord injury expert in this case agreed early on in his cross-examination that he had lost all objectivity and independence in the case, while the defendant’s physiotherapy and accommodation experts were criticised by the judge for adopting more partisan approaches in their later evidence.

The claimants objected to the wording of a question for the expert witnesses in marine engineering because it invited the experts to express an opinion on a matter of fact which is ultimately for the court.

The judge found that it was without justification and entirely unecessary for an expert to question the opposing expert's professionalism and motives in selecting evidence, noting that this approach was unhelpful for the tribunal. 

The judge noted that that the manner in which two Expert Witnesses in Chartered Surveying gave their evidence was more advocacy than opinion, with one expert’s report reading more like a skeleton argument.

In the circumstances of the case, including the absence of a timely challenge to lack of form, the judge gave due weight to an expert report and the answers to questions without subtraction for lack of compliance with CPR 35 and rule 3 of the Practice Directions.